comex wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Speaking personally, I moved to REASSIGN 1651, not just because the
>> judge lacked understanding, but because this lack appeared to be so
>> severe that I believed e would continue to lack understanding even i
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking personally, I moved to REASSIGN 1651, not just because the
> judge lacked understanding, but because this lack appeared to be so
> severe that I believed e would continue to lack understanding even if
> the issue were
ais523 wrote:
> The precedent of CFJ 1651a (as comex mentioned in eir appeal) is that when a
> judgement illustrates a lack of understanding of the issues, it should be
> reassigned; this judgement instead illustrates a lack of consideration for
> the arguments, but is a similar problem. If the
ais523 wrote:
> Murphy wrote:
>> I may change my mind if additional counterarguments specific to this
>> issue are brought to my attention.
>
> For the attention of Murphy:
>
> Although many of the arguemnts were expressed in terms of whether the
> equation could be made a contract or not, many
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The judgement fails to address the argument that rule 2169 is capable of
> creating a contest, with root as contestmaster because rule 2136 would have
> allowed em to create a contest with em as contestmaster, without
Murphy wrote:
> I may change my mind if additional counterarguments specific to this
> issue are brought to my attention.
For the attention of Murphy:
Although many of the arguemnts were expressed in terms of whether the equation
could be made a contract or not, many of them implied the contestm
6 matches
Mail list logo
